For an offence under Section 328 IPC, forensic evidence is essential for determining the nature of substances administered to the victim, and a trial court must review all relevant evidence, including pending forensic reports, before discharging an accused.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner/State for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 09.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge ("ASJ"), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Case FIR No. 1001/2015 under Sections 365/354/328/323/34/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") at Police Station ("PS") Mahendra Park, Delhi titled as "State v. Sameer & Ors." whereby learned Trial Court discharged the respondents from the offence punishable under Section 328 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2015, respondents/accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, administered alcohol mixed in a cold drink to complainant with an intent to cause hurt to her. It is alleged that accused persons also caused simple injuries to the complainant and also outraged her modesty. On this basis, an FIR bearing no. 1001/2015 was registered at PS Mahindra Park, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 365/354/328/323/34 IPC against accused persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and respondent no. 1 was charge-sheeted for having committed offence punishable under Section 174A of IPC along with above- mentioned offences.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that learned Trial Court, without going into the merits of the case, discharged the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC. It is stated by learned APP that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are specific allegations by the complainant against accused persons that she was beaten up after being administered with alcohol mixed in a cold drink. It is further stated that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there is a prima facie case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC as the MLC of the complainant clearly states that smell of alcohol is present and the MLC is sufficient to frame charge under Section 328 of IPC against the accused persons. Learned APP for the State argues that the impugned order was passed by learned Trial Court without waiting for the FSL report. It is further stated that grave error was committed by learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents states that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality since the learned Trial Court has passed a detailed order wherein the learned Trial Court has appreciated the material on record. It is further stated by learned counsel for respondents that learned Trial Court has rightly tested the records of the case and taken a prima facia view.

5. I have heard the submission and arguments on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents and have gone through the material on record.

6. It is appropriate to first reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.08.2017, which are as under:

"The essential element of S.328 IPC is that the victim should be administered poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other thing. The forensic examination of the stomach order to determine the substance that administered was alcohol is, therefore, imperative for ascertaining the commission of the offence u/s 328 IPC. The opinion of the victim who is rendered unconscious after taking the substance may not be stated t